Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan gave an interview to Public Television on November 22. Below is the full transcript of the interview with Tatev Danielyan.

Public Television – Good evening. My interlocutor today is Nikol Pashinyan, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia.

Good evening, Mr. Pashinyan. Thank you for this opportunity. Mr. Prime Minister, in one day we witnessed the resignation of six officials at once, most of them from the law enforcement system. At the Cabinet meeting, you spoke about your dissatisfaction with the law enforcement system, you said that your patience has run out. But I would like to ask you to be specific, to specify which part of the work of which official you are dissatisfied with, because it turns out that there are resignations, there are dismissals, but in this regard, there seems to be no accountability to the public.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - In terms of accountability, I think it should be obvious that personnel changes are related to topics that are being discussed publicly in one way or another, but it is also not necessary that these discussions be linked to specific individuals, especially since, as I said, the dismissals in this period are not personalized, but are more related to systems.

But I also want to say that these personnel changes themselves, if we say so conditionally, are not conflictual, but work-related, I will clarify what that means. I must also say that I appreciate the work of all our colleagues, including the work done by those who have resigned, and all these people have made a very significant contribution to the development of the systems. But on the other hand, it is obvious that there are questions in the areas where the events took place, which have been raised since 2018, before that, after that, and to this day, and these issues need to be addressed more effectively.

Public Television - Mr. Prime Minister, if you say the problem is systemic, not personnel-related, in that case why did you make personnel changes, systemic changes do not seem to have taken place.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Look, first of all, as for systemic changes, I want to say that all our colleagues who left their positions, without exception, made systemic changes in their positions. For example, in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in the Police, the situation today is certainly not the same as it was in 2020, when Vahe Ghazaryan was appointed Chief of the Police, and later also Minister of Internal Affairs. We can say the same about the Anti-Corruption Committee, which is, in fact, a body formed from scratch. The Investigative Committee has undergone enormous systemic and personnel changes.

As for the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure. Look at the enormous work being done in the Republic of Armenia. The State Revenue Committee has undergone very serious reforms. And now the next question, in that case, what is the reason for the dismissals? Please, the words are very important, because I said that our colleagues have implemented very serious systemic changes, and yes, they were working well in that regard. Look, there is a very important nuance, at least in my perception, that the leader must, on the one hand, lead the system and in that sense be part of the system, and in some sense he must have a certain separation from the system in order to be able to see the system from the side and implement further systemic changes.

In general, my experience, observation shows that, including in the state administration system, there is and comes a moment when the leaders who bring about those changes at some point, perhaps inevitably become part of the system themselves, that is, continuing that process of changes and reforms at the same pace becomes impossible.

Public Television - What does it mean when you say they become part of the system? Does it mean they start to engage in patronage or what exactly do they do?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - No, no. Look, in order to change the system, we need to see the shortcomings of the system, delve into the shortcomings of the system. There is such an expression that the quick-sightedness can simply be lost, and in many cases, also in terms of organizing purely organizational work, sometimes it happens to everyone, it happens to me too, when seeing or knowing the flaw, we usually start to avoid drastic actions at some point. And in my opinion, this is an understandable, but sometimes unhelpful practice, because we must also have the constant opportunity to raise questions within the systems themselves, because that is what will ensure the continuity of changes.

Public Television - Mr. Prime Minister, among those dismissals, or rather, those who submited a resignation letter, is also the Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Karen Andreasyan, a body completely independent of the executive branch. It turns out that at the Prime Minister's, so to speak, urging, he decided to submit a resignation letter. Now your opponents say, what is this, if not pressure from one branch of government on the other?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - First of all, I want to say that there was no urging from the Prime Minister, there was a request from the Prime Minister. These are completely different things, and is there a political, moral and legal opportunity to make such a request? I think yes, because I said at the last Cabinet meeting and in my numerous speeches that why do we have the problems in the judicial system that we want to solve? There is a key reason for this, that is, why do we have the problem that we all know about? One of the reasons for this is that we really want to have an independent judicial system. I don't know how understandable this sounds, but if we don't want to have a truly independent judicial system, much will pass peacefully and there will be no ups and downs, processes, or upheavals at all.

Public Television - Mr. Prime Minister, I am sorry, but right at the time of Karen Andreasyan's appointment, it was already being discussed that the goal of the central government or the executive branch is not to have an independent judicial system, but to subordinate it to itself, taking into account that Karen Andreasyan worked in your office, was considered your teammate, you might remember the story of the picture (PM Pashinyan's picture in Karen Andreasyn's office-edited), the famous comments, I want to say, there is a rupture between the statements and actions of the executive branch about an independent judicial system.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - What rupture?

Public Television - I already said, about being your teammate, the same discussion takes place around Vahagn Hovakimyan.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - There are criteria for membership in the Supreme Judicial Council, right? That is, a member of the Supreme Judicial Council is elected according to those criteria, he must comply with those criteria. The rest is very discretionary, because if someone has reached the point where he should be nominated and elected as a member of the Supreme Judicial Council, then he is a sophisticated person, that is, he has worked somewhere, that is, he has been somewhere, he has a certain direction of activity, he has carried out some activity.

Now, with the same logic, whoever assumes this position in the future, we can say with certain criteria that he has worked in this particular place, because the very criterion is that he must have worked in that particular place. Another thing is that there cannot be any appointment in the Supreme Judicial Council that deviates from the criteria established by law, but I was trying to develop another idea, that first of all, all these processes, where there is a process, mean that it is because we really want to have an independent judicial system, because you know what, I don’t know how correct it may sound, but if our task were something like the accusations you just cited, that problem would have been solved long ago.

Can anyone explain what the problem should have been on the way to solving that issue? In fact, if we are very honest, that system was ready, as of 2018, that system was ready, we just had to come and take the helm of that system, but we did not go that way. And all this is the result of that, where there is a result, and the consequence, where there is a consequence. And therefore, these ferments mean one thing, that we are not deviating from our strategic goal of having an independent judicial system, but there is also the other side of the coin, what is the other side of the coin?

By the way, if you ask me to formulate for the public what an independent judicial system means, I would formulate it in the following way: In my understanding, an independent judicial system is when regardless of what decision it has made, obviously, it is a judicial system with thousands, tens of thousands of cases, some of the decisions we may like, some of the decisions we may not like. The indicator of an independent judicial system is that whatever decision the judicial system makes, we say yes, the decision is good, even if we have questions, we say yes, it is a court, if the court has decided, then it is the right thing.

Our problem is that in many cases the court makes decisions, regarding which the attitude of the public and all of us in general is not so, because both the public and political forces, moreover, from different sides, are constantly looking for some hands that had an influence on those decisions. Moreover, do you know what the biggest problem for me here? I must tell the truth, I have not researched it in such detail and I could not, but I am convinced today there are thousands of judicial acts that meet the criteria I mentioned and they are such that no matter how deep we go, no matter how much we research, we will go and see that they are accurate, fair, independent judicial decisions, but those small group of decisions that cause a lot of noise and reaction spread negative atmosphere on the entire judicial system and the sense of justice and fairness in Armenia.

Now, what do we have to do with this? The ideal situation would be that I had nothing to do with this story, because the key point of an independent judicial system is that the prime minister either does not deal with this topic, or deals with it in cases that are precisely described by the legislation, but the problem of our reality today is that what happens in the judicial system, I am talking about the criminal cases that are initiated, become a verdict, they legally enter into force and, by all accounts, they 100 percent meet that standard of justice, and we should be grateful to all those judges who, with great difficulty, I suppose, but nevertheless, with their will, with their powers, make this a reality, but we don’t speak about all this, we never hear about them.

But the main interpretation of the group of cases that are causing noise, I will not hide, including in political circles, there is such a perception that this or that verdict is the result of some kind of interference. Very well, people still don't know that the Government also thinks so or may think so, because we also don't share these ideas very often due to restrictions, but what does a person think now? Does he think that all this is being coordinated in this building, with this building, and therefore, this building or, excuse me, why the building, the person is responsible for all the problems that he sees, assumes or knows?

And in political sense, this is true, because it is the political authorities that promise or do not promise that there will be an independent judicial system in Armenia. But on the other hand, I also said at the previous Cabinet meeting that my biggest problem is that 90 percent of the people of Armenia, or a significant part, do not believe that there is independent judicial system in Armenia.

That is, the fact that cases are delayed for years, the fact that strange decisions are made, I see and feel that people do not believe that all this was not agreed with me. We have had such absurd cases that, let's say, a trial in a high-profile criminal case took place, it dragged on, it dragged on, dragged on, dragged on, dragged on by all possible means, and at the moment when it comes to the moment when a verdict must be rendered, any verdict, any, you understand, I tell our colleagues that these cases need a solution. I am not a judge, I do not even reserve the right to say something about the verdict, even if I reserve the right, no one will do that, but the moment comes to render a verdict and the judge says, you know, I am at the age of retirement, I am gone. Now go start this case from scratch, you will investigate this case for another five years.

Public Television - Now, what can a replacement of an individual change, Mr. Prime Minister?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - The system.

Public Television - And secondly, the new Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, who will arrived, will he not feel constrained, that the Prime Minister could call him tomorrow and ask him to resign? In other words, isn't that already a form of constraint, that the Prime Minister could call him and ask him what to do?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - You know, asking means there are two ways out: to fulfill that request and not to fulfill that request.

Public Television - With all its consequences.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - What consequence, for example?

Public Television – I don't know.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Neither I know.

Public Television – We could see the consequences if one of the officials had not resigned.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - You know, look, I now want to formulate the following question: as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and the Chairman of the Board of the ruling party, and in general, in that governing status, do I have a responsibility for the existence of an independent judicial system in Armenia?

Public Television - Yes.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - How should I fulfill that responsibility in the conditions when, I reiterate, people are convinced that all these negative phenomena... By the way, I want to reveal a secret to you. Recently, you know that I have been communicating with people very intensively, during official and unofficial visits to the regions, and many conclusions are connected with direct contacts with people, as a result of looking at issues and situations from that side as well - from rural areas, from our parks, from cities. Excuse me, now that there is no independent judicial system in Armenia or people's perception is such that there is a lack of independent judiciary, let's say, fairness and justice, now that we ask people who is responsible and guilty for this, how many names and surnames of the members of the Supreme Judicial Council will they give, how many names and surnames of judges will they give, and whose name will they give, can you guess whose name will they give, won't they give my name? And how can I bear that responsibility if I don't even ask (to resign-edit), and what should I do?

Next, you ask what can a person change, what should he change? The system should be changed by a person. I have already said, all the people whom I have asked to leave their positions, they have changed the system, no one can say that the systems they managed were the same at the time of their appointment and have no significant difference from now. But I say again, there comes a point when the person who changes the system, also objectively, because it is very important that he should be part of the system in one way or another, but he becomes so close to the system that the potential for further dynamic change of the system is significantly reduced due to that closeness. In my opinion, that is the point where I should make a request.

Public Television - Mr. Prime Minister, by the way, there were media reports that you conveyed that request to the officials via SMS late on Sunday evening. Is that so?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - On Sunday, yes, late on Sunday evening, no, that is, in written text? Yes, including for the reason you mentioned, because there are nuances here, there are political, legal, moral nuances, and I considered it important that what I say be in written form, so that that written text, as necessary, and if there is such a question, either in the political, or moral, or legal sphere, that text be in written form, because verbal communication is not bad, but there can be very broad interpretations, misinterpretations, etc. around verbal communication. And I think, in general, my experience also shows that where the conversation is in written form that conversation is more effective and there is less room for further misinterpretations.

Public Television - Was this a unilateral decision or did you have a discussion with your teammates?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - This was a unilateral decision, because the Prime Minister has his own scope of authority. I will tell you, I have discussions with my teammates on many issues, even very extensive discussions, and that is normal, but the role and function of the head of the government and state is that there are times when he must be able to make decisions without sharing responsibility for it with anyone and without consulting anyone about it. That is the point.

Public Television - It was published in the press that you are going to appoint Deputy Prosecutor General Artur Poghosyan to a certain position, and his name is being circulated in some possible corruption deals. What do you have to say about this?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I can confirm that I am going to nominate Artur Poghosyan for the position of Chairman of the Investigative Committee. And I also want to tell you that if I am not mistaken, in 2020 or maybe later, Artur Poghosyan was appointed Head of the Investigative Department of the National Security Service, and I received those same alerts at that time, and a very thorough study was conducted, and those alerts that were publicly revived today were denied and were thoroughly refuted. Later, Artur Poghosyan was appointed Deputy Prosecutor General, and of course, some time ago there were already discussions about this, and those alerts were revived again, and were checked once again, and denied once again.

Now that I have seen those alarms that are still public, those alarms will be checked once again, because they have been denied twice as a result of very deep research, there is a high probability that they will be denied this time as well. When they are denied, my goal of nominating him for the position of Chairman of the Investigative Committee will become a reality.

Public Television - Do you have a candidate for the position of Chairman of the State Revenue Committee?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Yes, of course I do. But I am not ready to announce at the moment. I have candidates, in the coming days I will communicate with the candidates in more detail, have discussions on some issues and make a decision on who I nominate.

Public Television - I have a few domestic political questions, let's finish and talk about foreign policy. You know that a collapse situation has been created in Gyumri, the "Balasanyan" bloc gave up its mandates, now the city is facing a problem. What options for a solution is the central government considering?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – The central government has its own options for solutions, the issues that are urgent, we have solved and will solve them as much as possible. As for a more general response to the issue, the way to do that is to hold elections, but now it turns out that there is a problem with that in legal terms, and certain legislative changes must be made. And by and large, our task is that we must give the people of Gyumri the opportunity to elect their mayor.

But on the other hand, I want to say the following again: I cannot assess what happened otherwise than exceptional manifestation of irresponsibility, and all the speculations that the Government pressured someone in any way to take some action or not to take some action are absolute nonsense, such a thing simply could not and cannot be. As for criminal cases, the Government has nothing to do with criminal cases and cannot have anything to do with them. In other words, if there is evidence, then there is a criminal case, if there is no evidence, there cannot be a criminal case.

Public Television - You were just talking about public perceptions about who is responsible, and there are suspicions that the government can put pressure on that institution.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – And that is exactly it, the reason for clarifying those topics is that I am speaking here, I speak at the Cabinet meeting, I speak in the parliament, I speak in the village, I speak in the city, I speak on social networks to make everything is clear, because that is the most important problem. In other words, that socio-psychological perception also creates an environment and atmosphere.

Public Television - You spoke at the parliament, Mr. Prime Minister, during the budget discussion you raised the issue of official cars, you mentioned that during this period the number of government official cars has been reduced by 20 percent, but you also said that this is not enough. Don't you think that the 6 years of your administration were completely sufficient to solve this problem, to reduce the number of official cars to such an extent that at least it would be satisfactory for you?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I agree with you. And now I will tell you about the closed-door part of yesterday's Cabinet meeting. But so that the material of our previous discussion does not remain incomplete, I must also directly admit and say, because you recalled and mentioned the parliamentary discussions, that a number of events that took place in the parliament, which were public and which, in particular, took place during the parliamentary hearings, are directly related to the context of the dismissals or requests to resign. And here too, I think that what happened in the parliament is really unacceptable. And I think that in terms of preserving the dignity of our institutions, it would also not be right to remain indifferent, no matter how much all the colleagues who were involved in those processes enjoy my great respect and appreciation.

Public Television - Mr. Prime Minister, excuse me, can we say that Narek Zeynalyan also resigned at your request?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I can say that just as I addressed Argishti Kyaramyan with a request, I addressed the same request in the same way and with the same reasoning also to Narek Zeynalyan and Hovik Aghazaryan.

Public Television - Hovik Aghazaryan has not resigned yet. That is, he rejected your request.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Well, now you see that in fact, what I was saying a moment ago is not only a theoretical assertion, there is also practical implementation, at least at this moment, but I hope that my request will not remain unanswered, because, I say again, the problem here is not personalized. The problem is systemic, and we need to somewhat reconsider our perceptions, attitudes, and approaches towards our state and its institutions, and this applies to all of us.

Returning to the question about official cars. Now I want to tell you about the closed-door part of yesterday’s Cabinet meeting. What did I say to our esteemed colleagues? I said, esteemed colleagues, I thanked the opposition in parliament for reading and voicing my previous speeches, then I said that it would be good if the members of our Government read them too. We all laughed, but if it was humor, it was only partially humor.

Public Television - You also said it in the open part. You said that no one ever came and said that he has fulfilled your this or that promise.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Yes? Did I say that? You see, there is that problem by the way, when in very large processes, one can not remember certain episodes very well. And I said that since 2018 I have put a task before me to deal with that matter and here I also have reports that that issue has been resolved, is being resolved. And the number, I just have to say honestly, that it seemed to me that we had essentially resolved those issues at least largely, if not by 100 percent, at least by 60, 70 percent, but the reality is a little different. Why did I have such an approach to the issue before? Because I understood that in that issue, as in many issues, an uncompromising approach can simply cause numerous problems: organizational, working, etc.

And what you are telling me, I told our colleagues yesterday. I said, since this period of time was not properly used to solve this problem in a systematic and in-depth manner, now I, with all due respect, will solve this problem through uncompromising measures. What is happening now? I want the lists of vehicles of the departments, I was busy with that in the morning too, and I am simply scratch these vehicles with a pen. This is an ancompromising approach, and I am sure that certain organizational problems will arise as a result of this approach, but these problems would arise again because our colleagues did not respond properly to what I said publicly and privately in a timely manner. Now I have to use an uncompromising approach...

Public Television - Now what percentage of official cars are you going to reduce through that uncompromising approach?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - A large percentage, a very large percentage.

Public Television - 80, 90, 70, 40 ...?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Approximately that much, but I want to say the following, that we are talking about official cars, because there are cars in ministries and departments that do not serve people, but are designed for certain works. In other words, there is a fleet of cars. The most obvious example is that for operational work, it is obvious that there are a very large number of cars, the number of those cars will not be reduced at all. It may even increase at the expense of these other cars.

I say it again, because our colleagues are also listening, the public is also listening. You understand that psychological moment is very important: a revolution, a person who has appeared here from the revolution. I have also never wanted and will not want the logic of spontaneous decisions for work, but when systemic instructions are not carried out in accordance with political statements... because, really, why should the opposition open and read what I have said in the past to come and hit us with it, right? Our Government must also read and solve those issues, so that they cannot use it to hit us.

Public Television - Now about one of the most popular topics to hit you. In 2015, you, as an opposition MP, were giving a speech in the National Assembly, noting that accidents have not decreased as a result of speed cameras, nothing has changed in terms of safety. Let me quote: "We recently discussed this issue at a meeting of the Civil Contract Party board and came to an unequivocal conclusion. Our party's position is that speed cameras should be removed, and we will put this issue at the heart of our pre-election programs." Now, why didn't you fulfill your promise, and moreover, during your tenure, the number of speed cameras has increased.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – You raise a very important question. And yes, what you said is true. After the 2018 revolution, I already started to raise and talk about this issue. And it was then that I noticed that there was a certain pessimism among the public, on social networks, regarding this issue. If we remember, there was also very serious resistance to this on social networks from circles that had clearly participated in the revolution, but this resistance was not only through social networks. When, as Prime Minister, I officially and unofficially began to communicate with our citizens, there were a huge number of cases when residents, especially grandmothers and mothers, were asking to put a speed camera on their street. I was asking what speed cameras should we put, and they would say that they are afraid for children, etc., if we put a speed camera here, it would be better. And, in fact, I saw and felt a certain public pessimism and resistance in connection with this, also in connection with the increase in the number of accidents, etc.

Public Television – But it was you saying that there is no reduction in accidents.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Also during that time, there was a very large increase in the number of cars. But also during this time, we took the following actions. We made certain legislative changes, and one of the important subtexts and contexts of this issue was the following: in fact, that “Security Dream” company was outsourced to the private sector, and as you know, it is currently a completely state-owned company and is completely under state control. And you are also aware that we completely changed the system related to driving license and fines, and introduced a point system so that drivers who constantly commit violations would be deprived of their driving licenses. By the way, this situation exists also within the Government, because in 2018 that circumstance was also related to it, and there is this circumstance today, in 2018 there was a consensus Government, several parties were involved, and they also had some pessimism on that topic, and in today's political team there is not a clear opinion on it either. But I, on the other hand, now see and feel that we really have a problem there, and that problem needs to be addressed in some way.

Do you understand, it is very important that the decisions of the head of the country and leaders in general are balanced. That is, well, we have said something, so that is the end? Should not we take into account any other arguments? It is obvious that there are arguments there, but for me it is important that this issue be addressed.

And I have thought and think that it would be right, no matter how much this may seem not an essential issue, but taking into account the wide public interest in the issue and, in fact, the great clash of views on the issue, because I know it 100 percent, that is, I have tried it several times and I have seen it, when I say, now that's it, we are removing the cameras and speed cameras, the same kind of public resistance will arise, I know that. And taking this into account, I think it would be right for us to find a way to resolve this issue through a referendum.

Public Television - But if I'm not mistaken about tax collection...

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Sorry, this has nothing to do with taxes at all. But I have studied that issue as well, and now we have a certain limitation in the law, which is good on the one hand. Why? Because now the Government cannot decide to put that issue to a referendum, because, as our experts have explained, according to our legislation, the Government can only put certain issues to a referendum.

But what to do now, am I leading the issue to a deadlock again, or do I want to offer a solution? In fact, the solution is as follows: our legislation provides that we can hold a referendum on a public initiative, and since there are many people who are against the removal of speed cameras, and a very large number of people are against it, I am sure that grandmothers and mothers are definitely against it, my contact with them has shown that... And by the way, it continues to this day, to this day. I remember the last visit, for example, in Dilijan, what happened when we were supposed to repair the road leading to Vanadzor, by the way, it is already completed, we laid at least the first layer of asphalt a few days ago, and we needed to repair it, the road was in very bad condition there, and I remember one, two women, approached me, said: it is very good that you are building the road, but please put a speed camera here. I said, "Why?" They say, "Now at least the road is bad, people drive slowly, and when the road gets better, they will drive fast. At least that speed camera or those bumps, they can solve the problem." Now what is my idea, and what have I thought and what do I want to propose? Our public group, who are in favor of removing speed cameras, I will support that group myself so that they can start collecting signatures to bring a legislative initiative to the National Assembly to remove speed cameras.

But we will also agree with them in advance that if they collect 50 thousand signatures, the issue will be submitted to the National Assembly, but they should know that there will be no consensus, the National Assembly will vote against, after which we will move on to 300 thousand signatures, and if we manage to collect 300 thousand signatures, we will put the issue to a referendum in order to resolve this issue in a nationwide manner, because this is an issue that concerns every family.

I also want to say the following that I will support this process in the organizational part, but I will not advocate my position either in favor of “yes” or “no”, because the contacts that I have, have had during this time, do not allow me to take a unilateral position. This is the plan I can purpose.

Of course, I have to apologize in some way to those people who think that I should have done this by administrative decision and I didn’t, but I also want to apologize to those people who insisted that it shouldn’t be done in any case, and today still insist that speed cameras should be installed on their streets. The situation here is such that yes, we should give people the opportunity to express themselves, if it comes to a referendum.

Look, why am I suggesting this? It is very important to measure public demand. If 50 thousand people gathered, then there is at least some preliminary topic, 50 thousand signatures come to parliament, it is clear that a large public discussion will take place during that time, without our participation. Now, after this interview, a large public discussion will take place and many points of view for and against will be voiced.

Public Television - Mr. Prime Minister, sorry for straying away from the topic, since you talked about the referendum, are you going to do the “Euroreferendum” project with this same logic? Now if it enters the parliament, will you urge your teammates to vote against it and wait for 300 thousand signatures?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – There is a nuance here that somewhat changes the situation. That nuance is that day after day I saw and felt the resistance regarding the speed cameras and I still see it today. Moreover, I see both resistance and supporters. Our esteemed drivers who are fined with those cameras, I know that they are very negative about the cameras, I am sure that when they are upset, they even curse. Why did I bring that example? Because it is an example from a month or two ago. To this day, people say we demand... and if I am not mistaken, we have satisfied the request of our esteemed women, we have installed a camera or a road bumper... somehow that issue has been resolved, I hope so. At least I have been reported that the issue is solved. When I go to Dilijan, I will pay attention to that. I've been there recently, but I forgot to check if it is installed or not.

In the case of the “Euroreferendum”, there is one circumstance that, to be honest, was a bit unexpected for me. What was unexpected for me? When I delivered a speech in the European Parliament last year, and the main message of my speech in the European Parliament was that the Republic of Armenia is ready to be as close to the European Union as the European Union deems possible. And do you know what surprised me to a great extent? That speech of mine, if I'm not mistaken, is the speech that has received the greatest spread and reaction ever on social networks. If I knew that we would be addressing this issue, I might have researched it. But even the statistics from the times of the revolution, so to speak, are more ....

Public Television – You mean there is a public consensus on this issue?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I wouldn’t dare say that there is a public consensus, because, nevertheless, to say such a thing, there must be statistics behind it. But obviously, that there is a very broad public understanding. And it turns out that, in fact, it was me who proposed that agenda to the Republic of Armenia and the European Union. And after proposing that agenda, there could have been such a thing, by the way, that after proposing that agenda, there would have been such a great public resistance that I would have thought that we should still continue to understand the topic. But the public response was so positive, or, let’s not say positive, but encouraging and in the logic of consensus, that we should at least think very seriously. I tell you, I knew that 50 thousand signatures would be collected on that topic. I have a very strong feeling that 300 thousand signatures will also be collected.

Public Television – My question was just about that, that is, the National Assembly will vote against it, they will start collecting 300 thousand signatures? Do you already have a decision?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – We do not have such a decision, we have not discussed it at the faction level, but let me tell you something, here we need to look a little into the political logic. I went to the European Parliament, I said that the Republic of Armenia is ready to be as close to the European Union as the European Union deems possible, after my speech, discussions in Armenia intensified, those active discussions led to a process, collection of signatures, that the draft is submitted to the National Assembly. Political logic says… As far as I know, there is still an opportunity to work on the formulations, but it will be very difficult to explain that logic to the ruling majority, whose political leader made a statement from the podium of the European Parliament, not only our society, but also the European society will say: wait a minute, you came and said such a thing, you said it from here, didn't you? Now you went back, your public responded to it positively, now it turns out you are against it? Imagine if the answer is yes, there is no political logic there.

Public Television – What do you mean?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I mean we will discuss. I expressed my position.

Public Television - Mr. Prime Minister, you have repeatedly criticized the mechanism for providing state support, that an able-bodied citizen does not work and receives certain social support, and during the last Cabinet meeting you were also talking about the need to reconsider social support programs for benefits. Will you do this before the election, because it will cause great social discontent against the Government, if there are reductions in these programs? And that implies a reduction, not an increase.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - The number of families receiving social and family benefits has significantly decreased since 2018. If my memory serves me correctly, it has decreased by approximately 30 thousand families. Of course, this is also related with the increase in the number of jobs. By the way, I assume that today the new number of jobs in Armenia will be published, which again sets an absolute record according to the data for October. If I am not mistaken, there are 749 thousand paid jobs. We are counting this because statistics is a bit of a complicated science, there are jobs with a zero salary that are also counted. We have excluded them from that count, and it only concerns those who are actually working and receiving salaries. As for the program, it will be introduced from January 1, 2025. And at this moment, yesterday the minister said at the Cabinet meeting, we will apply it on a pilot basis in two regions. It is possible in Syunik and Kotayk regions. Why Syunik and In the Kotayk regions? Because, according to statistics, the Syunik region has the lowest poverty level, and we assume that it is convenient in that regard, because if suddenly...

Public Television – It's a failure.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Not if it's a failure, but because the initial tensions will be less there. But, yes, the idea is that we change that whole system of poverty assessment. There is just one nuance here. You mentioned those who are not working should not be supported.

Public Television – Those who are not working, but are able to work.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan –The idea is not like that at all. The logic of the program that we want to implement is that we first accompany a person and prepare him for work. I don’t know if I have said it publicly or not, but working discussions, as well as our discussions with experts, confirm my perception that not working also has a certain psychological layer, because if we assume a person has not worked for 15 years, it’s not just that we need to tell him: this is it, there is a job, go and work, because in a person’s life it's a great stress, just as not working is a great stress for a working person… In other words, being idle is stress for a working person, so is working for someone who has not worked for many years, that is, having working hours, having this or that responsibility, this is also a great stress.

A person should be accompanied to that point. What will happen at that point? We must offer the person a specific job, and if I'm not mistaken, the job is offered once, twice, three times. If the person refuses to work in all three cases, then we simply say that the support is suspended. But if the person agrees to work, that support does not stop from that moment, but continues for a certain time, with a certain methodology, until the moment when the person has already returned to the full labor market and completely restored that mentality of working. It has many components, but the general ideology is this.

Public Television - You also talk a lot about making Armenia a country where people would not want to leave and would build their well-being here. But citizens have certain expectations from the Government, and one of them was the expectation of health insurance, which was promised to be introduced from July of this year, now it turns out that the 2025 budget does not allocate money for it either. It's said it might be done in 2026. Citizens feel cheated in this regard, Mr. Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Citizens should not feel cheated, because we need to distinguish two things. First, is the Government abandoning that idea? No. Is the Government continuing to work on that idea? Yes. Why not now? Because when a political task is set, the implementation begins from the point of setting the political task, and that is a path that needs to pass. On that path, new information emerges that you were not aware of at the start of the path, because that path contains turns, mew viewpoints, and unless you reach this point, blocked by this obstacle, this mountain, this building, you won't see the situation.

I personally have participated in about a dozen discussions related to health insurance, as well as in recent visits to the regions... By the way, I want to say that those regional visits have acquired great importance for me, because from there I get impressions, information, and see situations that you would never see in the Prime Minister's office, in a normal work schedule. Among other things, during the regional visits, problems that exist in the healthcare system were revealed to me. My assessment was that today we are not yet ready to take that big step. But regarding disappointment: since 2018 until today and also in 2025, the healthcare budget in the Republic of Armenia has doubled. And the number of cases that are serviced at the expense of the state budget has more than doubled. For example, if back in 2018, and we already had improvements in 2018, approximately 430 thousand cases were serviced, according to our latest data, we have served more than 930 thousand cases in total. But on the other hand, you know, what surprises me is that the number of cases has doubled, but I do not feel that the level of people's satisfaction has increased. This is a phenomenon that specifically opens up uncertainties for me, and until I get answers to these uncertainties, I will not make a decision on the introduction of health insurance myself, because it may turn out that there is a big gap in front of us that we do not see today, and there may simply be a big failure and a big collapse that will have a great cost on us.

I want to say directly that the reason for this, and I'm not just talking about me, I'm talking about the Government, the Ministry of Health, as you go forward, new questions emerge. And yes, there are two approaches. By the way, I want to tell you something, for example, in the case of the Patrol Police, at the moment when we made the decision, many questions were unclear, and we had a task to overcome those uncertainties, either to clarify and then move forward, or move forward and clarify things during the process. In that case, we made the decision to go forward, solving the problems during the process. And it was a justified decision. But in this case, we're talking about healthcare.

As I said, there are already more than 900 thousand cases, and 900 thousand cases means at least 600-650 thousand people, because when a case is counted, one person can have several services at the same time. If we reach a dead end there, it could have very serious consequences, and therefore, we continue to go that way and will continue that path.

But we will launch the system at the moment when we have the answer to a significant part of the uncertainties. Honestly, we must also understand that the process itself is a very important part of the result. I myself was faced with a personal choice: what should I do? So many people tell me, ask me, urge, demand, people, in essence, say: don't do it. Ok, you have said you will do it, but don't do.

Yes, you can say, "No, I'll do it," but there's also a problem here, leadership also has that quality, that you have very strong opinions and convictions, but you also have to be able to listen, you have to be able to see what you couldn't see two days ago. And that's not only not a shame, but on the contrary, excessive stubbornness is a shame, it can bring problems, although it's impossible to move forward without a certain amount of stubbornness.

I want us to appreciate the work that is being done now to introduce health insurance, it is very important work. I, to be honest, in my last speech in the parliament wanted to give an example that I was not sure was an appropriate example, but nevertheless it is a very powerful example. You know, there is a space telescope called "James Webb", which was launched into orbit or space in 2022. When the design work of that telescope began, a deadline was set and a budget, a budget of 500 million dollars was set in the United States, and a deadline until 2011, it had started in 2004. As a result, the telescope flew into space in 2022, if I'm not mistaken, and with a budget of 10 billion. Moreover, the Congress has stopped budgeting several times citing ineffective expense, as a shameful waste, but now that project is probably considered the best project of all time in space science. And if they were guided by that standard, it would really be a failed project, but of course, this does not mean that it should be like that in all cases, but it also happens like this. For example, I imagine health insurance in this way, that we design it in such detail, because it is related to people's lives and health, that it serves its purpose. These gaps and uncertainties have not yet been sufficiently clarified.

Public Television - Now let's move on to foreign policy. One of the Azerbaijani officials declassified the three remaining open points that, if Armenia agrees, the peace treaty will be signed. Azerbaijan demands an amendment to our Constitution, not to file lawsuits against each other in international bodies, and the removal of EU civilian observers from Armenia. Please, what is Armenia's position on each of them separately?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - First, the word declassified is not appropriate there, because what did they declassify?

Public Television - Well, published.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - If we say declassified, it means that some secret has been revealed. And what is the secret that has been revealed? We have said that we have not discussed and have not included at least the agenda related to the Constitution at the negotiating table. In that sense, the word “declassified” is not very appropriate, but it is a well-known fact that Azerbaijan has such a position.
But what is our response to Azerbaijan's position? What does Azerbaijan say? Azerbaijan says that the Constitution of Armenia contains a territorial claim against Azerbaijan, and to substantiate this, it quotes, refers to the Preamble to the Constitution, which in turn refers to the Declaration of Independence, which in turn refers to that famous decision of 1988 on the reunification of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia.

What is our response to this? First of all, our political response is not that important, because an event has occurred during this time, the Constitutional Court has addressed the issue, of course, in the context of discussing the regulations of the Border Delimitation Commissions. What did the Constitutional Court, in essence, say? It said that, in essence, those provisions of the Declaration of Independence that are expressed verbatim in the articles of the Constitution have constitutional force.

Public Television – But that does not change Azerbaijan’s demand.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Very good. This is one argument, and after this argument it is very important for us to understand, and we need to look at the arguments. There is a very important nuance here. Why is Azerbaijan raising this issue? Because it really has fears and concerns, or is it raising this issue to bring the peace process to a deadlock? We proceed from the assumption or it is our perception, also taking into account the negotiations, the certain progress in the negotiations, we do not want to be guided by the logic that Azerbaijan is purposefully leading to a deadlock. That is why what are we doing? We are consistently trying to dispel that fear with arguments. I have already voiced argument number one.

The second argument is as follows: we see and we also have concerns, and it is obvious that the Constitution of Azerbaijan contains territorial claims against the Republic of Armenia. I have explained in detail during the last parliamentary question-and-answer session, so I will not delve into it now. Here the question is: in that case, why do we not raise the issue of amendments to the Constitution of Azerbaijan? For two reasons, because firstly, it would really mean bringing the peace process to a deadlock, and secondly, in the agreed part of the peace treaty, we already have an agreed article, which states: “Neither Party may refer to its internal legislation for failure to fulfill its obligations under this treaty,” and in another already agreed part of that treaty, it is stated that the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan recognize each other’s territorial integrity, have no territorial claims against each other, and undertake not to make territorial claims in the future either. Therefore, we consider this issue resolved by this treaty.

But there is also a third argument, which I can say for Armenia, but by and large, it is also true in the case of Azerbaijan. Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Armenia states that international treaties ratified in the Republic of Armenia have primacy over domestic legislation. Let's assume that Armenia and Azerbaijan have signed a peace treaty, what should we do? The government must inevitably send that treaty to the Constitutional Court. Of course, after the decision of the Constitutional Court that I cited, the probability is small, but if the Constitutional Court decides that that treaty contradicts our Constitution, it will be a concrete situation where we will have to make a choice both as a government and as a society: what to do, change the Constitution or refuse the treaty.

If the Constitutional Court of Armenia decides that the treaty complies with the Constitution, then there is no obstacle for the treaty to go to the National Assembly and be ratified. Once ratified, from that moment on, the treaty gains primacy in the Republic of Armenia, therefore, any concerns of Azerbaijan are thus addressed and resolved, and of course, the concerns of Armenia are also addressed and resolved likewise.

Public Television - Mr. Prime Minister, you say that we consider this issue resolved, but in order for a peace treaty to be signed, the issue must be considered resolved for both sides, and Azerbaijan continues to insist that it demands a Constitutional change.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - That's exactly what I'm saying. We are saying that Constitutional change...

Public Television - Will that convince Azerbaijan...

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Now let me try to explain this way. In other words, is it a whim for Azerbaijan or an expression of certain fears? If it is an expression of fears, what should we do? We should respond to those fears in a consistent, reasoned manner, at the same time also stating our concerns, and trying to formulate a set of arguments that will address both our concerns and those of Azerbaijan.

Public Television – Now about the second demand: stepping back from filing lawsuits in international legal instances. I remember that during the ratification of the Rome Statute, there was a wide discussion that in this way Armenia could file lawsuits against Azerbaijan in the International Criminal Court. Now it turns out that we should g step back from filing lawsuits against each other, which is in the logic of peace, but this is what Azerbaijan demands, but recently they made additions to the lawsuit they had filed in 2023. In other words, on the one hand, they demand Armenia not to do such things, and on the other hand, Azerbaijan continues to do it now.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Look, as long as there is no agreement, we are also making additions, they are making additions. But if we approach the issue from the point of view of this principle, my approach is as follows: if we see that we are really achieving peace and establishing peace, that is, we are signing an agreement, I think that it is possible to make such a deal, which means that neither they nor we should file claims against each other regarding previously occurred events and mutually renounce the claims, and in the future we should not file claims related to the previous events and hope that there will be no reason to file a claim in the future. But the logic would be that if suddenly there is a reason to file a claim in the future, it would not limit either them or us regarding future issues.

As for the third point about observers, I will tell you the following: we have the following approach: we have made a counter-proposal to Azerbaijan, we have said, very well, let's make that regulation regarding the demarcated sections, because there is simply no need to objectively have observers in the border that is demarcated.

Public Television - By the way, where has the demarcation process reached, Mr. Prime Minister?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - You know that the last meeting took place in October, if I am not mistaken, and the demarcation commissions did the following: they mutually presented proposals on which sectors to continue the demarcation, Armenia presented its approach, Azerbaijan its approach. Now, at the next meeting, it will be decided on which sector to continue the demarcation. You know that a large international conference is taking place in Azerbaijan, and, obviously, the members of the Government are focused, I suppose, at least the understanding is that the processes will continue after the conclusion of COP29.

Public Television - Referring to the previous question, regarding the Declaration of Independence, although we note that we consider this issue resolved within the logic of the peace treaty, you made such a statement that the Declaration of Independence is about the fact that the Republic of Armenia cannot exist. Please clarify what you mean.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Yes, it has nothing to do with the previous topic, because in one case we are discussing a legal-political issue, but my statement was purely political. And what is that political statement about? It is about the following: we, in essence, due to a number of objective, of course, also subjective circumstances, have put a logic in the Declaration of Independence that presupposes long and deep conflicts with our environment. And that long and deep conflict logic with our environment is about the following: either due to those conflicts, the Republic of Armenia understandably cannot exist, because imagine, we are creating a newly independent state and putting a conflict logic with Azerbaijan, Turkey.

The next logic is that, having this relationship in this environment, how are we supposed to survive in this environment, in these conditions? For that, we need a super sponsor. There is no other option. If we cannot come to terms about coexistence with our environment, who is the next one who should ensure our existence in one way or another? It is about having a super sponsor, whose fist is bigger, and he supposedly stands behind us and acts instead of us. Now here comes the second risk, the second reality: either he will shake his fist so much that the others will be afraid, they will go and make an agreement with him about how to do it so that he will not shake his fist too. If he continues to shake, the more that fist is shaken in their direction, the more it is shaken in our direction, because it ultimately tells us: look, if you are not controllable, I will step back and something bad will happen to you, something that has already happened. Moreover, it is not necessary that we are talking about one fist (sponsor), there can be several fists. And that is what the logic is about here.

Public Television - Does this mean, Mr. Prime Minister, that in the near future you will address the public with a proposal to make constitutional amendments and the Declaration of Independence...

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Let's not link these issues together, because this conversation is a conversation at the socio-psychological level.

Public Television - If the Declaration of Independence is a threat to our independence, then this...

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Sorry, but our Constitutional Court has already said that our Declaration of Independence has de jure legal force for today only in those parts that are expressed verbatim in the Constitution. None of the parts I mentioned are expressed verbatim in the Constitution. But that socio-psychology, which we talk about every year, mention, refer to at the political level, which, in essence is saying that we created a state with this psychology, and we created a state with that psychology, and from the moment of creating the state, we have said that the existence of this state is not possible precisely due to the facts I mentioned.

Public Television – You mean psychology should be changed, but not the Constitution?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Look, it is very important to put the issues in the right order. I have spoken, I have expressed my conviction that Armenia needs a new Constitution. And I have said this for several reasons. One of the reasons is that the people really need Constitution acceptable for them. But I say again: let's put the issues in the right order.

Our last Q&A and my speech about the Declaration of Independence concerns our inner understanding, our socio-psychology, and I don’t even say this as a criticism, because I remember when the Declaration of Independence was adopted, I was in the 9th or 10th grade at that time, I was happy, I felt happy that a Declaration of Independence was adopted in our country. But I spoke publicly on this topic for the first time last year… At the same time, I want to emphasize one very important thing again, which in some sense may be bad, because it’s not like I always knew all this, figured it out and hid it, didn’t say it. Although it would be good if this discourse had formed in me earlier, but on the other hand, the discourse probably forms when there are some prerequisites for its formation.

But for the first time I looked at the issue with this emphasis, perhaps, in my message on the occasion of Declaration Day in 2023. And yes, I have now clarified it further, now I am so deeply convinced of it that until an argument is heard that will destroy this perception of mine... Let me say one more thing. We don't like, consider it a problem when some people say ''western Azerbaijan''. But when saying ''Western Armenia'', don't we think that it may irritate some people? Like we are irritated to hear ''western Azerbaijan'', others are irritated to here ''Western Armenia''. Now again there will be talks about another treason, but today I am in the situation and I bear the responsibility to talk with our people and show them the cause-and-effect relationships, chains. If I don't do this, it means that I am consciously leading our country towards the loss of statehood. I cannot allow this.

Public Television - You made a remarkable statement in the National Assembly, Mr. Prime Minister, when talking about the BRICS meetings, you mentioned that Armenia and Azerbaijan need to conclude a strategic deal. Please, can you clarify what a strategic deal you were talking about?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - The strategic deal is as follows, to put it short, it is a topic with many layers. We talked about part of them in the context of the three points. The strategic deal is as follows: Armenia and Azerbaijan must not only de jure, but also de facto socio-psychologically and at all levels accept that Soviet Azerbaijan with its territory is independent Azerbaijan, Soviet Armenia with its territory is independent Armenia. We need to fix this reality, we need not to delve into the past, start gradually opening communications, establishing economic ties, etc., very slowly, very careful.

I am convinced that if we start very slowly, very carefully, then it will grow at a very high pace naturally, not artificially. And we should think about the following, and Georgia also has a certain connection in this regard, that, nevertheless, the three South Caucasian states have common interests or can have common interests. This is the title or preface of the strategic deal, there are many layers in the rest, I spoke about some of these layers in the context of the peace treaty.

Public Television - Mr. Prime Minister, you expressed hope that you would like a peace treaty to be signed by the end of the year. Is there such an expectation now? When will it be signed?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I can say one thing that I will do my part to make it happen by 100 percent and even more.

Public Television - On November 16, you had a phone conversation with the President-elect of the United States, Donald Trump. The press release was very brief. If possible, could you elaborate on what you talked about, because the electios in the United States was closely linked to further developments in the region.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I can present my part again, although President Trump was also interested in this topic. You know that my term as Prime Minister somewhat coincided with President Trump's first term in office, then the president changed in the United States. My main task was to present what developments have occurred in Armenia-United States relations during this period, the developments that have taken place in the peace process and the region? In short, we can say that, in essence, the phone conversation was informative, but also very positive.

Public Television - And the last question is of a personal nature, if you dont' mind. About seven years after the start of the revolution, you decided to shave your beard. Now I have the impression that I was interviewing opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan. There were all sorts of comments on social networks about this. Can you tell me the real reason why you decided to shave?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - You know, I'll tell you something honest, because it was a bit unexpected for me that this issue received such a wide response, because my goal.... In other words, it is clear that a change in the image is taking place. But it was later that I realized that there are all sorts of discussions, and I have to explain it somehow. I can only say one thing, when I decided to shave, I decided on the day: I will do it on my eldest daughter's birthday, although now that this interview goes on air, my other daughters will ask why not on their birthday. I am sure that Ashot is not ambitious in that regard, not only in that regard, and he will not raise such a question.

You see, in 2018, when I assumed the position of Prime Minister, from the very first second or maybe a little before that, when it was already clear that I would be elected Prime Minister, and the information flows started coming in, those information flows brought with them more questions than answers. And there was a very large group of questions that I didn't have the answers to, and it was obvious to me that I would have a lot of difficulty answering those questions for myself. Pay attention, this is about "myself," this is not about relationships with others. And exactly 4 years have passed since the 2020 war, and I don't know how good it is, how bad it is, practically every day since the start and end of the war, imagine, every day for 4 years, I went to bed and woke up with questions to myself. And there were questions that were asked thousands of times, that is, they were asked thousands of times over more than a thousand days, and if I want to subject myself to a psychological and subconscious analysis of why I made that decision, the answer for me is clear and unequivocal: at the moment of making that decision, I no longer had any questions for myself, and at the moment of making that decision, I had given myself the answers to all the questions I had raised.

Public Television – That's good.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Of course, that's good.

Public Television – Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Thank you.